I just finished reading The Last Campaign: How Harry Truman won the 1948 Election by Zachary Karabell (Knopf 2000) and The Boys on the Bus by Timothy Crouse (Random House 2003). (Can this first sentence double as a twitter entry?)
Some differences and similarities related to the press coverage/involvement:
Differences
The 1948 campaign was the last campaign that did not rely heavily on television to reach the public. While television was used (events and speeches were televised) television was not used as heavily as it was from that election forward. Most of the campaigning was done with whistle stop speeches and back room meetings and little effort was put into image and how the candidate’s rough edges would come across. From this point forward, a television image would be cultivated by each candidate. Even Nixon made an effort and tried to soften his image and be less direct while on television.
One of the things I found most interesting from the 1948 campaign was the fact that because the polls indicated that President Truman was losing, the press also believed that he was going to lose. According to The Last Campaign, the polling data showed that President Truman did not have support, so the press discounted things that indicated otherwise. They did not take it seriously when the crowds were larger than expected. In future elections, the press would be more skeptical of the polls and other sources.
While there were a select group of reporters and journalists following the 1948 campaign, in 1972 the entire presidential campaign process was covered in detail by a dedicated troop of reporters who followed the candidates around and gave daily updates on the campaign trail. While some of the information reported may have been watered down a little or even repetitive (due to things like pack journalism and the fear of wandering too far from what the AP was printing) it was still much more information than the general public was used to getting about the presidential campaigns.
Similarities
Pseudo-personal relationships were built and exploited with the press around the candidates. In both campaigns there were journalists close to the candidates almost all the time. These journalists were fed their stories from the press secretary, but they also had the opportunity to see first hand the way a candidate handled the day-to-day pressures of the whole process. While we all know that journalists are supposed to be objective and report in a neutral way, they are also human. What they felt about the candidates personally came through in what they wrote (and what they did not). However, even with all the intense exposure to the candidates, in both books, the authors make points about reporters complaining that they felt they only had a superficial understanding of what type of person each candidate was, really.
Reporters considered themselves an integral part of the entire process, they were the link from the candidates, the real issues and the general public. Their jobs served an important function that enabled the public to make very important decisions.
Having little knowledge of the presidential campaigns of 1948 or 1972, reading these two books (especially during the presidential campaign going on right now) was fascinating! I wish I had read them sooner.
